HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU HCP No. 10/2025 Gurnam Singh Th. Babli Devi …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate vs UT of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 03.07.2025 ORAL 1. In the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Gurnam Singh through his wife has challenged order of detention bearing No. PITNDPS 49 of 2024 dated 09.12.2024 (for short ‘the Impugned Order’) passed by the respondent 1(for short ‘the Detaining Authority’) under and in terms of the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’). 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order while maintaining the instant petition, inter-alia, on the grounds that the Detaining Authority did not communicate and furnish the basic material relied upon in the grounds of detention to the petitioner and that the Detaining Authority failed to apply its mind while detaining the petitioner and that the petitioner was not informed that he can make a representation against his detention as a result whereof, the petitioner could not make a representation to the officer who passed the order of Serial No. 4 2 HCP No. 10/2025 detention, thus violating Article 22 (5) of the Constitution and that the bails obtained by the petitioner in respect of the FIRs in which the petitioner was shown to be involved were never challenged by the respondents and that, as such, the impugned order of detention could not have been passed against the petitioner in presence of the pendency of the criminal cases against the petitioner and that the execution warrant of detention is not supported by the certificate on oath to show that the grounds of detention were explained to the petitioner in the language he understood and that the impugned order is made on irrelevant and vague grounds for extraneous purpose, inasmuch as, in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1988 and that the impugned order has been passed without recording personal satisfaction by the Detaining Authority while repeating the contents of the dossier mechanically and that the impugned order has not been approved by the Government within the stipulated period and that the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority do not reveal proximate nexus with the impugned order and that the grounds, based upon which, the impugned order has been passed are not consistent and the impugned order has been passed in a routine and mechanical manner by way of punishment for the past acts of the petitioner without drawing subjective satisfaction by the Detaining Authority. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents to the petition, wherein the petition is being opposed, inter alia, on the premise that the order under challenged has been passed legally and in consonance with law on the basis of the material supplied by the SSP, Kathua to 3 HCP No. 10/2025 the Detaining Authority, whereupon examining the same carefully, the detention of the petitioner was found to be imperative under the of Act 1988 and that the petitioner even after getting bail in the FIR’s, in which he was found to be involved, from the Competent Court, again indulged in the said drug related activities and since the ordinary law was found to have failed to deter the petitioner from indulging in the said drug related activities, the detention of the petitioner under the Act of 1988 got necessitated. It is further stated that upon execution of the order under challenge, the petitioner was furnished all relevant documents along with detention order and grounds of detention consisting of 136 leaves and was also explained the same in Hindi and Dogri language, which the petitioner fully understood and also came to be informed about his right of making a representation against his detention. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is significant to mention here that the Act of 1988 has been enacted with an object to do away with the serious threat to the health and welfare of the people owing to the illicit trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and to prevent the persons involved in such illicit activities having deleterious impact on the national economy. The consistent view of the Constitutional Courts in regard to the Act of 1988 has been that the object of the Act is to pass the detention order under the Act in order to prevent a person from engaging in illicit trafficking in Narcotic Drugs etc. etc. and for the said purpose 4 HCP No. 10/2025 the past activities of such person have had to be taken into consideration with an aim and object to prevent such person from carrying out similar activities in future, thus, suggesting that it is legitimate to believe that on the basis of the past activities of the person involved in drug related activities, the provisions of the Act could be invoked for preventive detention of such person. Therefore, in view of the above, law stands settled that the Act of 1988 provides simply for preventive detention of a person involved in drug related activities under the Act in order to check his future propensities to indulge in such drug related activities, being not punitive in nature, but preventive in character, inasmuch as not to punish the person qua such drug related activities in the distant past, but rather to prevent him from carrying on such activities in future. 5. Keeping in mind the aforesaid scheme and object of the Act of 1988 and reverting back to the case in hand, a closer perusal of the record in general and the grounds of detention in particular would reveal that the petitioner indisputably has been found involved in FIR No. 19/2021 registered for offences under Sections 8/21/22 of NDPS Act registered with Police Station, Kathua, FIR No. 233/2021 under Sections 8/21/22 of NDPS Act of Police Station, Kathua, FIR No. 146/2023 under Sections 8/21/22 of NDPS Act of Police Station, Kathua and FIR No. 11/2024 under Sections 8/21/22/29 of NDPS Act of Police Station, Kathua and in all the said FIRs, the petitioner indisputably stands bailed out by the Competent Court. 5 HCP No. 10/2025 6. Further, it emerges from perusal of the dossier furnished by the sponsoring agency to the Detaining Authority appended as Annexure- III to the petition, the sponsoring agency has, in specific terms, while referring to the involvement of the petitioner in the said FIRs, stated that the petitioner after release on bail in the said FIRs, has continued his drug related activities having a close nexus with the gang of criminals involved in drug related activities, involving youth in the consumption of drugs. 7. 7. Record would further reveal that the Detaining Authority while considering the dossier, inasmuch as the other material furnished thereto, has not been oblivious to the activities of the petitioner reported to it by the sponsoring agency and seemingly has on the basis of the said sufficient cogent material, drawn subjective satisfaction, necessitating detention of the petitioner under the Act of 1988 and consequently ordered the preventive detention of the petitioner herein. Having regard to the said position obtaining in the matter, it is deemed undesirable to interfere with said subjective satisfaction drawn by the Detaining Authority qua activities of the petitioner, more so in view of the settled position of law that interference with the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority while detaining the detenue under the preventive detention is not the domain of the Courts. 8. Further perusal of the detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents would tend to show that the impugned order stands executed against the petitioner by one Inspector Ajay Chib of Police Station, Kathua and the execution report suggests that the petitioner 6 HCP No. 10/2025 stands furnished 136 leaves of material including the detention order, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier and copies of FIRs, statement of witnesses so on and so forth. The said execution report is also accompanied with a receipt executed by the petitioner in token of acceptance of having received the said material from the executing officer. An affidavit, as well, sworn by the executing officer is annexed with the execution report, signifying that the executing officer has executed the order of detention against the petitioner and furnished the entire material to the petitioner. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that he was not furnished entire material referred and relied upon by the Detaining Authority while passing the impugned order is found to be factually incorrect, in that, no counter material or pleading thereto has been filed by the petitioner in rebuttal by way of rejoinder affidavit. So much so, the plea of the respondents that the petitioner stands informed about his right of making a representation against his detention appearing in the order of detention dated 09.12.2024 has not been even disputed by filing any credible cogent material or pleading in rebuttal thereto by way of rejoinder affidavit. 9. It is significant to mention here that the position of law is settled that the preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention, in that, the power of preventive detention under a statue is exercised by the Detaining Authority as a precautionary measure in reasonable anticipation and may or may not be related to an offence or else may or may not be a parallel proceeding, in that, preventive detention does not overlap prosecution even if it relates to certain facts 7 HCP No. 10/2025 for which prosecution may or may not have been launched or else an order of preventive detention may be made before or during prosecution of a person in a criminal cases, inasmuch as may be made with or without prosecution and even in anticipation or after discharged or acquittal of a person, thus manifestly suggesting that the pendency of prosecution of a person is not a bar to an order of preventive detention, so, is also not an order of preventive detention bar to the prosecution of a person. 10. A deeper examination of the detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents reveals that the respondents have duly complied with all the statutory requirements envisaged under the Act of 1988 besides having fulfilled the mandate of the constitutional provisions. 11. Viewed thus, for what has been discussed, considered and analysed hereinabove the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. 12. Detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents is returned back in the open Court. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE Jammu 03.07.2025 Mahavir Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No. Mahavir Singh 2025.07.08 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document